SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5350, 21 May 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL JURISDICTION. ■Monday, May 20. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr, Justice Johnston, Mr. Justice Gillies, and Mr. Justice Williams.) ; ■ HENRY V. HENRY AND MOORE. On the application of Mr Chapman, who appeared for the petitioner, this case was postponed to Monday next. WILLIAM BARNES V. LOUISA BARNES AND DAVID MARTIN. Mr-Allan for the petitioner, who prayed for a divorce on the ground of adultery. William Barnes, the petitioner, testified that In May, 1877, ho married a person named Lonaia Fisher, who was then living with her eiaterat Ohariu Valley. Tiny were married by the Registrar at Wellington, Mr. Wilder. Afterwards they lived for a week at the sister’s house, and he then leased , a place off aMr Brown. They lived there for only about three weeks, when Mrs. Barnes went to Wellington. She asked to go to town, and he gave her leave, she promising not to be long away. When ho got home ip the evening she was not there, and on going to meet he saw her coming home with David i-- ■ Martin, a sailor. When she got opposite the house he asked her if she was coming home, and she said, “No ; this is the man I am going with,” and patted Martin on the shoulder three times. She then used bad language to v him before a third man, and went away with Martin.' 5 Judge Johnston : Why did you let her go? Witness : I could not help it. Judge Johnston : Were you not a match lor Martin. • Witness: I did not like to interfere with her at all, sir. ■ Witness proceeded to say that he had seen the respondent and co-respondent at the Upper Hntt, where they were living together. It was two or three months after she left. Hs had not taken any steps to get her back. He was not aware that she had been guilty of Improper behavior before marriage, but he knew that she had been living with Martin as his “missus.” She did net behave very well after marriage. Martin never went to petitioner’s house when ‘ho was there ; hut ho was often away, being engaged in chopping firewood. He had no' quarrel with her, bnt she was frivolous in her manner, and frequently laughed at him. The Chief Justice : What did she do she : ought not to? Judge Johnston : Or leave undone that she ought to have done ? Witness declined to reply. Judge Johnston : Did she laugh at you tor marrying her ? Witness : Yes, I think so. Judge Johnston: For being such a fool as to marry her ? ~ Witness I expect that was it. She said she did not like ms. Witness continued : She said she had only married me for a home;' that was soon after the wedding'day; and when Martin came back she said she would go to him. Hedid not know her long before the marriage. Judge Johnston : Did you court her long before you married her ? Witness: No. 1 . Judge Johnston : Which 'of yon proposed marriagefirst ? ' ■ Witness: She did, sir. William Ashby, a laborer living at Ohariu Valley, stated that he knew the parties to the suit. He saw Martin , the day before Mrs. Barnes left her husband give her a parcel containing material for a new dress for the child he called his. This was done in a certain part of a house in the valley. They whispered and talked together, and then went out, returning in a few minutes. He had since seen them together in Wellington. Martin took the child but of Mrs. Barnes’ arms and kissed it. Martin and Loo'Fisher had lived together as husband and wife. She bad two or three children besides that, but it was supposed to be Martin’s. Witness was at Barnes’s place soon after the marriage, and Mrs. Barnes had two children with her. Ha never heard any quarrelling, and B trues did not neglect her in any way. This witness supported the petitioner’s statement as to the meeting between Mr. and Mrs. Barnes and Martin. Ho beard Mrs. Barnes say to her husband's face, “ I like Martin’s little finger better than your whole body, and th s is the man I am going with.” Charles Mudgway, jun., living on the Po-rirna-road, gave evidence that since the marriage be had seen Mrs. Barnes and Martin in a public-house at Ngahanranga. Martin, during a conversation, said, “Me and the mistress have been away at Picton,” and we are going into the Ohariu Valley. Witness said, “If you go in there Barnes will get his wife ” To this Martin replied, “ Ob, no, Barnes is not going to have my mistress. lam going to keep her this time.” '. In answer to a question from the Bench, witness said, “ I knew her before Barnes married her, before Martin got her, before some one got her before Martin did, and before somebody else got her before that. I have known her since she was four years old. She is now -about twenty-four years of ago.” Judge Johnston : Who was the first man she lived with > : Witness : Oh, Salmon was the first man ; but just stop a minute. Field was the first man; that is to say, the first I could prove, but going by hearsay I of course could mention many; but these are the men I have seen living with her. Judge Johnston'; How long ago ? Witness ; Just about two years ago. A witness named Stonhil gave evidence ns . to a conversation with Mrs. Barnes and Martin, , in which they admitted having lived together. • This closed the case, and the Court granted a rule nisi, to be moved absolute at the first jjitting of the Court under tho Divorce Act after the expiration of three months, " M’JIAHON V. jTjrAHON AND BUSSELL.

The petitioner, Michael McMahon, prayed •for a divorce on tbs ground that his wife Sarah Jane McMahon had, in October, 1877, married oae Robert Bussell at the Hutt, bad thereby been guilty of bigamy, and had com- : mitted adultery. • 1 ‘ ; Mr. Allan, who appeared for the petitioner, .r- said in his opening address that the petitioner and the respondent had separated by mutual consent -in 1879, soon after their marriage, in consequence of religious differences—the husband being a Koman Catholic and the wife a Protestant. , Probably Mrs. McMahon was under the impression that as she had not heard of her husband for some seven years she was justified in marrying again. , George Mabey, a farmer residing at the Taita, stated be was a witness at the marriage between McMahon and Sarah Jane Harris, in February, 1860, and he was also a witness at .the manage in October, 1877, of Sarah Jane McMahon, formerly Harris, with Bobert BusseU. ; Witness then supposed that McMahon' was dead. Tbo lonian married was the same Id each case. Bussell and .the respondent were ■ living together at the Hutt. Michael McMahon, the petitioner, said he was a Catholic, and his wife was a Protestant. They lived together after the marriage for five or six months in all. They had some difference about religious matters, and mutually agreed to separate, but be made no provision for her ; support. - She was living with her parents, and he handed over a piece of laud to her father. It was ah Interest in 80 acres in the Manawatu Small Farm Association, - on which he had paid about ■ half in monthly Instalments. The petitioner lived at Mr. Harris s after bis marriage, and worked for him. In fact .be was working for him before the mamage. . After he and his wife separated he had lived at Wanganui, Marlborough, and Taranaki, but had not been out of the colony. When he beard that bis wife had been married again, ho commenced these proceedings. The father never mentioned anything about a provision for his daughter. They had lived so unhappily together that ho left of a sadden, all baving come to a conclusion that they had better separate. Ho never pressed his wife to become a Catholic, They had no children. Ho bad asked that they should be married in the Catholic Church as well, but that was objected to on the ground that the witnesses would not like to go to that church. At tbo conclusion of the evidence. The Chief Justice said the Court thought the petitioner had made out his case, and would grant a rale nhi on tha usual terms. WHITE V. WHITE AND BENNETT.

: Mr. Travers, for the petitioner, appeared to move absolute the rule nisi for a divorce obtained herein, Thero was no appearance for the respondent or co-respondent, and the decree was mode absolute. .

WOOLOOOK V. WOOLCOOK AND WADDELL. Mr. Travers, for the petitioner, asked that tho case might be adjourned, in the absence of a witness who was expected to arrive on the next day. The case was adjourned to Monday. DEVERY V. DEVERY AND BURKE.-

The petitioner, Arthur Devery,:prayed for a divorce on tho ground of adultery by the respondent, Bridget Davery, with the co-respon-dent. James Burke, and other persons. Mr. Izard appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance of the other side. ■ Tho case had come before his Honor Judge Johnston at Christchurch, who ordered that it should be heard by the Full Court. Arthur Devery, the petitioner, stated he was a farmer and contractor, living in Canterbury. He was married to Bridget Belsou in 1866, at Greymouth, in the Roman Catholic Church, by Father Ryan, the witnesses being an old man and woman who lived at the Presbytery. He had known his wife for six or seven months before they were married, and was quite awaro she had not been behaving herself properly before the marriage.. They lived on the West Coast for about five years, and then went to Leeston in Canterbury. A little time after she was married his wife took to drink, but he was always iu hopes shewould mend, and would yet be as ho hoped when he married her. Once she went away for four or five months. Two years ago last racing time, in November, she left him. one wished to go. to the Christchurcu races. n tho previous year she got tipsy at the races, and disgraced him by using nasty tongue. Therefore he would not take her again. From further evidence given by the petitioner it appeared that his wife went to Christchurch with Burke, but returned in a few days. Asepara-, tiou ensued, and Mrs. Devery received an allowance of 30s. a week ; but on finding that she was leading an abandoned life, he stopped tho allowance, and instituted proceedings for a divorce. , . The dissolute and immoral nabits of the; respondent were proved by two constables from Christchurch. The Court granted a rule nisi ou the usual terms. The Court thou adjourned to Monday next at 11 am.